Its not about blame. It's about why we need to be trained to think about the futures on a every moment basis. Not thinking long term about every decision leads to decisions that have long term negative effects.
Why do we make the decisions that make us over eat?
The brain isn't some mystical thing. It's a chemical factory. Simply saying 'Take responsibility' dismisses what is actual going on.
I knew some dimwit like you would post something like that.
You need to understand a few things:
A) Something ARE outside our innate control and responsibility. B) The study is discuss the effects on language on a culture of people, not individual persons. It's an effect over a large group. SO, yes a predisposition to not thinking about future effects can lead to short term thinking. C) Headline seldom represent they actual findings.
What this study does is give us another data point to help people understand the complex natures of the humans response to the evolutionary trait to eat whenever we can, for famine is coming.
Yes, Me being over weight is my fault, but why did I eat when I didn't need to? why do people buy food and eat, even when intellectually they know they shouldn't? Why do people dismiss the calories in small snacks?
"Take my word for it or don't but compare me to my brother and you'll see taking simple responsibility for oneself is literally the difference between not only fat, smoking, and broke...but educated, healthy, and prosperous as well..." IF you can't think or reason beyond anecdote, then you really shouldn't participate in these discussions.
The premise assumes that you and your brother are exactly the same. So the only impact on your lives is taking responsibility.
Here's a tidbit: taking responsibility is an act of agency; which is impact my chemical creation in the brain. And you and your brother where not raised the same. Assuming your parent are human, they treated you differently , even during development.
Should your brother say : I don't like this, lets figure out why I haven't been able to change and correct THAT; which will allow him to correct bad behaviors. I simple serotonin difference between you and your brother is all that is needs for one to have a stronger sense of agency over the other.
It's a small study, with only three languages. Like most scientific investigations, the first study is usually small. If something appear to be correlated, you move on to larger and more controlled studies, if the effect diminishes, then it's likely to not be causation. If it is stronger, you do more studies and so on.*
Dismissing every small study with you complete miss understanding of the statement means science would never go anywhere.
Should they use this study to apply policy changes? no. If that was the case, THEN you statement would be appropriate.
*It's a little more complicated and nuanced, but that's it in a nut shell.
If everyone talks in long term ways, does long term thinking become the cultural norm? Which would be nice, because humans suck at long term thinking. We need training and reminders to do it.
"On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. " the French eat less fat then Americans and British.
The french have a saying "Cheese OR dessert"
Japanese obesity and heart disease is increasing very quickly. In fact it correlate to the increase in portion size and availability of quick fatty foods.
And that's how business works. If I walk into a show store and buy a pair of nike, and there is an issue, I go back to you, not Nike.
So either you must offer a warranty, or sell apple care. Alternatively, your corporation must make an overall policy decision, and streamline the implementation. If it's no replacement, then enforce it, if it's replace then make it easy for the employees to do so.
You're haltered isn't about apple, its about how your company handles the situation.
Frankly, I got my phone at best buy, AND I got the extend warranty. It was cheaper then a screen protector and case with the added bonus of not making my nice sleek phone look like shit. Oh, and I get 110 in store credit when I am done with it.
It does work if the cost goes down as volume goes up. It fails when costs are static; which is why it failed in 01. People with the old school mind set applies it to a situation where volume as little impact in overall costs.
People succeeded when they looked at companies where volume had a minimal impact on the need to higher more people.
He said Apple, not Apple fan boys. So comparing it to Google fan bois is disingenuous at best, and just poor reading comprehension on your part at worse.
Apple blamed the carrier and the users. At least the had the decency to then quietly fix the issues on their side.
Except most people are horrible at thinking ahead in financial terms. And companies don't go out of their way to inform them of the relevant details so the customer can make a reasonably informed decision. oh, and if people had to pay full price, it would probably lower the cost of the iPhone 200 bucks.
Of course allowing consumer to make informed decision cause a decrease in profits, so it isn't good for Apple of the carrier.
So you have a dollar in your hand, and you buy a coke, that's real money.
But you use that same dollar to buy a digital item, and suddenly it's not money? WTF?, over.
I mean, you DID read the article and understood they spend actual government backed green backs to buy the gold in the game, right? I mean, you wouldn't be one of those douche bags that spouts off without getting informed, correct?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank You.
Its not about blame. It's about why we need to be trained to think about the futures on a every moment basis. Not thinking long term about every decision leads to decisions that have long term negative effects.
Why do we make the decisions that make us over eat?
The brain isn't some mystical thing. It's a chemical factory. Simply saying 'Take responsibility' dismisses what is actual going on.
Because if you use one, I will hit you with a crowbar like you are an alien face hugger.
huh, all the COBOL developers I know make a ton of cash.
so some old lady can't run a red light and cripple you for life?
You have very little control over your own life.
I knew some dimwit like you would post something like that.
You need to understand a few things:
A) Something ARE outside our innate control and responsibility.
B) The study is discuss the effects on language on a culture of people, not individual persons. It's an effect over a large group. SO, yes a predisposition to not thinking about future effects can lead to short term thinking.
C) Headline seldom represent they actual findings.
What this study does is give us another data point to help people understand the complex natures of the humans response to the evolutionary trait to eat whenever we can, for famine is coming.
Yes, Me being over weight is my fault, but why did I eat when I didn't need to? why do people buy food and eat, even when intellectually they know they shouldn't? Why do people dismiss the calories in small snacks?
"Take my word for it or don't but compare me to my brother and you'll see taking simple responsibility for oneself is literally the difference between not only fat, smoking, and broke...but educated, healthy, and prosperous as well..."
IF you can't think or reason beyond anecdote, then you really shouldn't participate in these discussions.
The premise assumes that you and your brother are exactly the same. So the only impact on your lives is taking responsibility.
Here's a tidbit: taking responsibility is an act of agency; which is impact my chemical creation in the brain.
And you and your brother where not raised the same. Assuming your parent are human, they treated you differently , even during development.
Should your brother say : I don't like this, lets figure out why I haven't been able to change and correct THAT; which will allow him to correct bad behaviors.
I simple serotonin difference between you and your brother is all that is needs for one to have a stronger sense of agency over the other.
Only if you eat fewer then 2000 calories per say until you master the language.
But, you aren't part of the culture, and it is far, far, too late for you to have the language be innate to your thinking.
Assuming you are over 3.
I assumed be meant Clovis~
No Shit, Sherlock.
It's a small study, with only three languages. Like most scientific investigations, the first study is usually small. If something appear to be correlated, you move on to larger and more controlled studies, if the effect diminishes, then it's likely to not be causation. If it is stronger, you do more studies and so on.*
Dismissing every small study with you complete miss understanding of the statement means science would never go anywhere.
Should they use this study to apply policy changes? no. If that was the case, THEN you statement would be appropriate.
*It's a little more complicated and nuanced, but that's it in a nut shell.
IT's actually an interesting hypothesis.
If everyone talks in long term ways, does long term thinking become the cultural norm?
Which would be nice, because humans suck at long term thinking. We need training and reminders to do it.
No.
And you would be wrong; which has been shown in many studies.
"On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or the Americans. "
the French eat less fat then Americans and British.
The french have a saying "Cheese OR dessert"
Japanese obesity and heart disease is increasing very quickly. In fact it correlate to the increase in portion size and availability of quick fatty foods.
Fail.
You should have used the German word for gesundheit~
Becasue they bought it from you.
And that's how business works. If I walk into a show store and buy a pair of nike, and there is an issue, I go back to you, not Nike.
So either you must offer a warranty, or sell apple care. Alternatively, your corporation must make an overall policy decision, and streamline the implementation. If it's no replacement, then enforce it, if it's replace then make it easy for the employees to do so.
You're haltered isn't about apple, its about how your company handles the situation.
Frankly, I got my phone at best buy, AND I got the extend warranty. It was cheaper then a screen protector and case with the added bonus of not making my nice sleek phone look like shit. Oh, and I get 110 in store credit when I am done with it.
So you assume everything business does always make business sense? are you daft, or just ignorant?
I has forgotten about the crap heap known as JonKatz.
Thanks for the reminder... jerk.
It does work if the cost goes down as volume goes up. It fails when costs are static; which is why it failed in 01.
People with the old school mind set applies it to a situation where volume as little impact in overall costs.
People succeeded when they looked at companies where volume had a minimal impact on the need to higher more people.
He said Apple, not Apple fan boys. So comparing it to Google fan bois is disingenuous at best, and just poor reading comprehension on your part at worse.
Apple blamed the carrier and the users. At least the had the decency to then quietly fix the issues on their side.
Except most people are horrible at thinking ahead in financial terms.
And companies don't go out of their way to inform them of the relevant details so the customer can make a reasonably informed decision.
oh, and if people had to pay full price, it would probably lower the cost of the iPhone 200 bucks.
Of course allowing consumer to make informed decision cause a decrease in profits, so it isn't good for Apple of the carrier.
Since you have been able to do that for years, I don't think you are telling the truth.
If running the servers and implementing new code was cheaper, they wouldn't have shut down the service since they would be making money.
HOWEVER, you're idea does have merit. The more us 'wear' an item the more is fades. Of course,m it can be repaired for a small fee..say a quarter.
Until this is done, pretty much all comparison of economical models between VW and RW are nothing more then interesting factoid.
No. If you bought an item in the game using real money. i.e. a gold purchase through blizzard, then you would have an example. This isn't about time.
So you have a dollar in your hand, and you buy a coke, that's real money.
But you use that same dollar to buy a digital item, and suddenly it's not money?
WTF?, over.
I mean, you DID read the article and understood they spend actual government backed green backs to buy the gold in the game, right? I mean, you wouldn't be one of those douche bags that spouts off without getting informed, correct?
Except things like this are last.
People who are owed money are first, and in bankruptcy, there really isn't even enough money to cover that.
It's like going after a bankrupt company to get your 20 bucks back for the gift card you bought the year before.